Post by Lolua on Jan 15, 2005 2:02:11 GMT -5
I offer the following newspaper article and my comments on its points.
Umm... did this guy read the fifth book? Jo's already managed to "knock off" a fan favorite, one who means way more to Harry than Hagrid does. Also, Hagrid is constructed to be incredibly difficult to kill. He's part-giant, and, as those who bothered to read the fifth book know, spells seem to bounce off of him.
Again, what's the big deal about Hagrid? He doesn't really protect Harry more than any other members of the Hogwarts staff and hasn't since he warded off the Dursleys in Book 1. If anything, Harry now protects him: clearing his record in CoS, talking him into sending Norbert to Romania before he became so big he started crisping students, defending Hagrid from Rita Skeeter, watching after Grawp for him...
I'll grant that Harry is very likely to have to step out from under Dumbledore's wings at some point. How is he going to work up the nerve to defeat Voldemort if he's under the shadow of Dumbledore, The Only One Who Has Been Able To Kick Voldemort's Snaky Butt. There has to be a changing of the guard. As for Dumbledore's leaving in a patently Gandalfian fashion, I disagree. I think Dumbledore will die in as obvious a fashion as Sirius (with just enough mystery to keep people wondering), but, as the man said himself, "Do you think the dead ever really leave us?" Oh, Dumbledore will die... but he won't be totally gone, just unable to physically protect Harry. Of course, death didn't stop Lily from doing just that....
Again, I question Mr. Guinn's comprehension of the series. Perhaps he skimmed over the part in PoA where it is revealed that while Sirius Black indeed did not betray the Potters, Wormtail did. This betrayal has already happened!
It could, though, happen again. After the mistakes of his parents, Harry is unlikely to exactly repeat the Secret-Keeper fiasco, but there are several people who are already in line to be more significant traitors than they already are. Percy's a good example. Be on the lookout for a post by me on betrayal as a theme, and what this same heroic tradition prescribes as fitting endings to the lives of those who live as traitors.
Again I ask if Mr. Guinn has read the fifth book. I understand that it's a long, intense book, and I sympathize with those accustomed to shorter tomes, but... come on. Harry and Cho are over.
As far as Harry living not-so-happily-ever-after, I'm torn. On one hand, Harry has suffered enough. On the other hand, nothing Jo Rowling has written in the past five books has suggested that she was going to let Harry have a storybook ending. Her epilogue, the final chapter of the seventh book, which nosy neighbor children have forced her into hiding in a safe-deposit box, will, I believe, tie up loose ends for the other characters. We'll find out whether Ron and Hermione have a future together that involves being at each other's throats in a good way, and we'll discover what Neville Longbottom and Remus Lupin decide to do with the rest of their lives. We'll have our last glimpse at the revolving door of the DADA job, with some idea of who will occupy that contested position and how long they might stay in the job.
But we won't see Harry drift out to sea with Dumbledore and a selection of pointy-eared people in long purple dresses. Rowling's world is too grounded in reality for that. As magical as Diagon Alley is, there is no Grey Havens and no Avalon. The closest thing is the mysterious veil, and we're pretty sure where that leads (aside from MoonCroww's closet). And I just can't see Harry walking through the veil just because he can. He's way too Gryffindor for that.
No, I think that, like Frodo, Harry will carry painful reminders of all that he has lost. He may have scars aside from the famous one on his forehead. He will undoubtedly be the reason for more deaths, and that's not an easy burden for an 18-year-old to carry for the rest of his life. But he's not going on any mystical journeys unless they involve a VW Bus and some good old fashioned Longbottom Leaf.
Article Source: www.dfw.com/mld/dfw/10634555.htm?1c
King Arthur, Frodo might provide clues to Harry's future
By Jeff Guinn
Star-Telegram Books Editor
Six months and three days before Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince hits bookstore shelves, author J.K. Rowling is apparently fed up with rampant speculation about what's going to happen to the boy wizard and his pals in their sixth (and, supposedly, penultimate) adventure.
"I shall only say this once," Rowling recently posted on www.jkrowling.com. "The only sources you should trust concerning information on The Half-Blood Prince are official spokespeople for my publishers and my official Web site . . . I can't waste time denying each and every lunatic rumor."
Yet Rowling, in her coy way, has encouraged the frenzy with occasional Web site hints, particularly that somebody important will die, but not Harry. Such talking points have whipped her readership into a literary lather.
"SRobot2000 reports that he/she knows J.K. Rowling and she said one of Ron [Weasley's] brothers will die," notes www.harrypotterrealm.com. Gambling Web site www.BlueSquare.com takes it further -- its subscription members can bet on who Rowling plans to kill off (early favorite is Hagrid at 6-4; Albus Dumbledore's odds are 2-1, and know-it-all witch-in-training Hermione's chances are estimated at 5-1. Anyone who thinks Rowling's tossed out a red herring and really intends to do away with Harry can back up that notion with a wager at 16-1).
But there are better methods of prophesying than cyberspace navel-gazing. In the first five Harry installments, former schoolteacher Rowling has blended fine storytelling skills with reliance on traditional "epic adventure" elements, many of which have been included in other massively popular books. Clues can be found in Camelot and the Shire as well as on the Rowling Web site. Either by accident or intent, Rowling is taking Harry down story paths that, among others, King Arthur and Frodo have already trod. Arthur, of course, has been a fictional stalwart since the 900s, when bards began singing about him. (T.H. White nailed the modern version in The Once and Future King.) Lord of the Rings author J.R.R. Tolkien was, like Rowling after him, an educator who was well-versed in literary history.
Rowling so far has recycled familiar material, albeit in an exceptionally interesting way. For instance, there's the orphan angle. Arthur Pendragon and Frodo Baggins were raised by uncles, too, though Sir Ector and Bilbo, respectively, were considerably more congenial than Vernon Dursley. "A-great-wizard-as-mentor" plot line provided Arthur with Merlin and Frodo with Gandalf. Harry has Dumbledore. In each instance, the young protagonist is aided by a motley crew of associates, and someone evil (Morgan le Fay, Sauron, Voldemort) has considerable dark magic to wield against them.
Only two books -- The Half-Blood Prince and the still-unnamed seventh adventure -- remain in the Harry series. If Rowling holds true to previous form, it's likely that these yet-unused "epic" elements will be integral in one or both.
1. A key character or characters must die. Arthur lost Galahad, Gareth and Gaheris. Boromir died saving Frodo from the orcs. So Rowling will almost certainly knock off a fan favorite, and Hagrid seems the obvious choice.
By Jeff Guinn
Star-Telegram Books Editor
Six months and three days before Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince hits bookstore shelves, author J.K. Rowling is apparently fed up with rampant speculation about what's going to happen to the boy wizard and his pals in their sixth (and, supposedly, penultimate) adventure.
"I shall only say this once," Rowling recently posted on www.jkrowling.com. "The only sources you should trust concerning information on The Half-Blood Prince are official spokespeople for my publishers and my official Web site . . . I can't waste time denying each and every lunatic rumor."
Yet Rowling, in her coy way, has encouraged the frenzy with occasional Web site hints, particularly that somebody important will die, but not Harry. Such talking points have whipped her readership into a literary lather.
"SRobot2000 reports that he/she knows J.K. Rowling and she said one of Ron [Weasley's] brothers will die," notes www.harrypotterrealm.com. Gambling Web site www.BlueSquare.com takes it further -- its subscription members can bet on who Rowling plans to kill off (early favorite is Hagrid at 6-4; Albus Dumbledore's odds are 2-1, and know-it-all witch-in-training Hermione's chances are estimated at 5-1. Anyone who thinks Rowling's tossed out a red herring and really intends to do away with Harry can back up that notion with a wager at 16-1).
But there are better methods of prophesying than cyberspace navel-gazing. In the first five Harry installments, former schoolteacher Rowling has blended fine storytelling skills with reliance on traditional "epic adventure" elements, many of which have been included in other massively popular books. Clues can be found in Camelot and the Shire as well as on the Rowling Web site. Either by accident or intent, Rowling is taking Harry down story paths that, among others, King Arthur and Frodo have already trod. Arthur, of course, has been a fictional stalwart since the 900s, when bards began singing about him. (T.H. White nailed the modern version in The Once and Future King.) Lord of the Rings author J.R.R. Tolkien was, like Rowling after him, an educator who was well-versed in literary history.
Rowling so far has recycled familiar material, albeit in an exceptionally interesting way. For instance, there's the orphan angle. Arthur Pendragon and Frodo Baggins were raised by uncles, too, though Sir Ector and Bilbo, respectively, were considerably more congenial than Vernon Dursley. "A-great-wizard-as-mentor" plot line provided Arthur with Merlin and Frodo with Gandalf. Harry has Dumbledore. In each instance, the young protagonist is aided by a motley crew of associates, and someone evil (Morgan le Fay, Sauron, Voldemort) has considerable dark magic to wield against them.
Only two books -- The Half-Blood Prince and the still-unnamed seventh adventure -- remain in the Harry series. If Rowling holds true to previous form, it's likely that these yet-unused "epic" elements will be integral in one or both.
1. A key character or characters must die. Arthur lost Galahad, Gareth and Gaheris. Boromir died saving Frodo from the orcs. So Rowling will almost certainly knock off a fan favorite, and Hagrid seems the obvious choice.
Umm... did this guy read the fifth book? Jo's already managed to "knock off" a fan favorite, one who means way more to Harry than Hagrid does. Also, Hagrid is constructed to be incredibly difficult to kill. He's part-giant, and, as those who bothered to read the fifth book know, spells seem to bounce off of him.
2. One way or another, at a crucial moment Harry will suffer long-term loss of Dumbledore's protection. Merlin was bewitched by Nimue. Gandalf seemed to die, re-emerged as an even stronger wizard, but was kept otherwise occupied in faraway battles while Frodo had to destroy the One Ring in Mordor. Since neither Merlin nor Gandalf was completely gone forever, it's unlikely Rowling will make Dumbledore's departure an actual demise. Which might make Hagrid even more nervous.
Again, what's the big deal about Hagrid? He doesn't really protect Harry more than any other members of the Hogwarts staff and hasn't since he warded off the Dursleys in Book 1. If anything, Harry now protects him: clearing his record in CoS, talking him into sending Norbert to Romania before he became so big he started crisping students, defending Hagrid from Rita Skeeter, watching after Grawp for him...
I'll grant that Harry is very likely to have to step out from under Dumbledore's wings at some point. How is he going to work up the nerve to defeat Voldemort if he's under the shadow of Dumbledore, The Only One Who Has Been Able To Kick Voldemort's Snaky Butt. There has to be a changing of the guard. As for Dumbledore's leaving in a patently Gandalfian fashion, I disagree. I think Dumbledore will die in as obvious a fashion as Sirius (with just enough mystery to keep people wondering), but, as the man said himself, "Do you think the dead ever really leave us?" Oh, Dumbledore will die... but he won't be totally gone, just unable to physically protect Harry. Of course, death didn't stop Lily from doing just that....
3. Harry must be betrayed by someone he trusts. So far, the surprises in the Harry series have involved seemingly bad characters turning out to be on Harry's side after all -- Sirius Black, for example. Arthur's eventual destruction came at assorted supposedly friendly hands: his wife's affair with his best friend, his son (Mordred) turning against him. Boromir was ready to do away with Frodo to get the One Ring for himself, and Smeagol pretended to be Frodo's ally for a while. Harry's got the back-stabbing to come -- perhaps by a favorite member of the Hogwarts faculty.
Again, I question Mr. Guinn's comprehension of the series. Perhaps he skimmed over the part in PoA where it is revealed that while Sirius Black indeed did not betray the Potters, Wormtail did. This betrayal has already happened!
It could, though, happen again. After the mistakes of his parents, Harry is unlikely to exactly repeat the Secret-Keeper fiasco, but there are several people who are already in line to be more significant traitors than they already are. Percy's a good example. Be on the lookout for a post by me on betrayal as a theme, and what this same heroic tradition prescribes as fitting endings to the lives of those who live as traitors.
4. Harry won't live happily ever after. Arthur was critically wounded in his final battle with Mordred, then spirited away by boat, never to be seen again. Frodo never did settle permanently back in the Shire; he, too, soon disappeared over the sea. In epic literary tradition, defeating great evil comes at great personal cost. Don't count on grown-up Harry ending up as Hogwarts headmaster, married to Cho Chang and contentedly presiding over many subsequent generations of fledgling witches and wizards. More likely Harry, broken at least in body and perhaps in spirit, will sail off to parts unknown.
Again I ask if Mr. Guinn has read the fifth book. I understand that it's a long, intense book, and I sympathize with those accustomed to shorter tomes, but... come on. Harry and Cho are over.
As far as Harry living not-so-happily-ever-after, I'm torn. On one hand, Harry has suffered enough. On the other hand, nothing Jo Rowling has written in the past five books has suggested that she was going to let Harry have a storybook ending. Her epilogue, the final chapter of the seventh book, which nosy neighbor children have forced her into hiding in a safe-deposit box, will, I believe, tie up loose ends for the other characters. We'll find out whether Ron and Hermione have a future together that involves being at each other's throats in a good way, and we'll discover what Neville Longbottom and Remus Lupin decide to do with the rest of their lives. We'll have our last glimpse at the revolving door of the DADA job, with some idea of who will occupy that contested position and how long they might stay in the job.
But we won't see Harry drift out to sea with Dumbledore and a selection of pointy-eared people in long purple dresses. Rowling's world is too grounded in reality for that. As magical as Diagon Alley is, there is no Grey Havens and no Avalon. The closest thing is the mysterious veil, and we're pretty sure where that leads (aside from MoonCroww's closet). And I just can't see Harry walking through the veil just because he can. He's way too Gryffindor for that.
No, I think that, like Frodo, Harry will carry painful reminders of all that he has lost. He may have scars aside from the famous one on his forehead. He will undoubtedly be the reason for more deaths, and that's not an easy burden for an 18-year-old to carry for the rest of his life. But he's not going on any mystical journeys unless they involve a VW Bus and some good old fashioned Longbottom Leaf.
Article Source: www.dfw.com/mld/dfw/10634555.htm?1c
